POLS 354 Midterm

Section 1 – Question 1:
Today's World Demanding of Theories Outside of Realism

Realism, the core of International Relations theory, has provided a stable backdrop for those involved in foreign policy decisions to build upon. Skeptical about the capacity of human reason to deliver moral progress, realism defines a structured world in which the humans who live within it are unable to change the course of one state's actions against another. This problem is rooted in the fact that one state's intentions can never be truly trusted when it is being controlled by individual actors with human ideals and selfishness. In this essay I will define realism and explain why other political theories must be utilized when analyzing International Relations today. While realism guided America to the middle of the 20th century, more modern theories have began building upon its core foundations, addressing international issues in a world where its actors are more interconnected than ever before. These changing relations demand changing analysis in regards to foreign policy. Realism may fail to incorporate human compassion, morality and the importance of social constructs, but other grand theories bring a new approach to International Relations. Where structured realism was once necessary to maintaining international relations, compassionate liberalism and conscientious constructivism are now necessary to understanding the more complex relationships among nation-states.

In regards to international foreign policy, one must consider the condition of anarchy when deciding which grand theory operates best in our world. Laura Neack states in The New Foreign Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era that “anarchy, rather than human nature, [is] the starting point for [the realist] explanation of world politics” (14). International politics are ungoverned, unlike domestic relations. The nuclear arms race is an excellent example of unmitigated anarchy between nations. Had there been an international code of conduct, complete with transnational laws and regulation, the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction could have been reduced. Without such an international police unit, the actors involved in anarchy must turn to Foreign Policy Analysis to make their decisions.

Realists respond to anarchy with either military force or by forming allies. They are skeptical of any objective other than national interest and of the idea that states can escape power politics (Wohlforth 32-33). It is no surprise, then, that realists are not likely to engage in peace-seeking dialogue with other nations. But where realists are more likely to engage in military conflict to solve their problems, it is not necessarily their intention; they are opposed to first-strike wars. Realists are unwilling to accept liberal and constructivist agendas which assert that peaceful relations can be attained through democratic discussion. I find it amusing that while realists are not interested in first-strike wars, they are also not concerned with reaching out to a fellow nation in attempt to prevent an opposing strike from occurring. This is where liberal and constructivist notions can benefit International Relations.

Realism asserts that we live in a world that simply is. We cannot change the structure of our surroundings or the actions of others. Liberalism, on the other hand, claims that collaboratively, we as individuals and as fellow nation-states, can change wasteful, needless problems in the world. Constructivism goes a step further to analyze previous and current relations with others and then make positive changes accordingly. This involves both keeping a nation's personal interests intact while pursuing absolute gains collaboratively with other nations. In regards to International Relations, constructivism says we must focus on the reasons behind international players' actions (Checkel 72). Constructivists see this approach as process-oriented, not structure-oriented, as realists view foreign policy. “Process,” in this context, refers to the diverse multi-level system of actors, structures, and political analysis involved with foreign policy; these system elements consistently affect one another through their individual actions. Even though constructivists are focused on achieving peaceful relationships globally, they also understand the threat imposed by potentially dangerous nations. Constructivists closely examine the language of power actors and decide how they must adapt their world to either appease or protest those demands.

I conclude that while realism has provided our world with a stable foundation in regards to Foreign Policy Analysis, I believe that the concepts of liberalism and, more importantly, constructivism are necessary to the ever-changing worldwide discussion of International Relations.

Section 2 – Question 1:
Constructivism Beneficial to Today’s Social World

In Foreign Policy Analysis, we describe the interests of actors to be socially constructed. Since these actors are representing a collective body of individuals within a society, it is only necessary that their intentions be beneficial to the social beings they are representing. Max Weber described statism as a power that “'successfully claims for itself the monopoly of legitimate physical force within a given territory'” (Kiersey). This legitimacy is indicated by the fact that the power itself is not contested by the people. Therefore, if the individuals of a society are accepting of the actors orchestrating the power structure, they are doing so because they see the actors' intentions as mutually beneficial. Constructivists, in this context, require that we analyze the language of actors to determine their intentions, although it is not intentions that they are concerned with (Checkel 72-74). Ultimately, constructivists seek to analyze the social-driven ontology of a state and its actors to determine possible solutions to problems which may arise when interacting with other nations. Unlike realism, constructivism allows for other political theories to be utilized. In this essay, I will explain why I believe the notion of process in constructivism is more beneficial to Foreign Policy Analysis than the positivist approach, which is structure-oriented. In a world where the intentions of foreign policy actors are socially constructed, an approach, such as constructivism, which accesses various grand theories, is necessary to breeding successful international relationships.

Positivism suggests that the social realm can be studied the same as the natural realm, and that even language can be analyzed scientifically (Checkel 72). This is to say that our intentions can be determined based on what we say, but that even though we may observe and analyze our social interactions, we cannot necessarily change the outcome of them. While positivists utilize a structured, fact-based approach to foreign politics, constructivists observe the process of our interactions with one another. There is no underlying structure to our international relations, according to the constructivists; the actors themselves create the structure. Furthermore, constructivism concludes that if our ideas about each other matter, then our approach to foreign policy should be process-oriented rather than structure-based (Kiersey).

In her book The New Foreign Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era, Laura Neack explains that since WWII, the study of individuals has become as necessary as the study of rational decision-making (51). This cognitive approach helps foreign policy analysts as well as international actors better understand and be able to predict other actors’ intentions. Neack cites Jerel Rosati’s definition of this approach: ‘A cognitive approach assumes a complex, and realistic, psychology about human reasoning and decision-making. It does not assume individual awareness, open-mindedness, and adaptability relative to an “objective” environment, but assumes individuals are likely to view their environment differently and operate within their own “psychological environment”’ (51).

In my opinion, neither realism nor liberalism benefits foreign policy as much as constructivism. Neack also seems to suggest this theory. Realism ignores the fact that human beings are operating in a world in which they psychologically create the environment around them. Bringing all of their life experiences to the table, actors construct their own reality, proving that they do not function in a structured world. Liberalism expects individuals to be open-minded and ever-progressive, but when these ideals are encouraged, individuals are just as likely to hold fast to their private interests and human selfishness as they are to work cooperatively with others to accomplish an end result. Constructivism, which incorporates attributes of each grand theory, is ultimately the best approach to analyzing and defining International Relations in today’s globalized world.

Section 3:
Mearsheimer and Walt Prove Foreign Policy Analysis Should Be Process-Based

In Foreign Policy Analysis, we utilize the terms “process” and “policy” to describe two different approaches to examining International Relations. “Process” refers to a chaotic ensemble of actors and structures working across a variety of levels with said actors constructing the world they live in. “Policy,” on the other hand, describes the act of explaining International Relations in terms of one grand theory or another (Kiersey). For John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, realism is the grand theory of choice. Both men are undeniably advocates of realism, and attempt to explain the lobby's affect on International Relations through a policy-based approach that is undeniably realist in nature. The irony in Mearsheimer and Walt's attempt is that by elaborating the complexity of the Israel Lobby in International Relations, they have disputed their own preferred grand theory. Herein, I will explain how, through the realist, policy-based lens, Mearsheimer and Walt have contradicted themselves and proven that a process-based approach is necessary in Foreign Policy Analysis today.

According to Mearsheimer and Walt, “The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction” (13). This coalition, they claim, is a primary cause for the U.S. setting aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state. Mearsheimer and Walt's advocacy for realism begins to unravel with The Israel Lobby's thesis. Realism, by definition, asserts that the structure of a state's domestic politics has little or no impact on International Relations, which are in a constant state of anarchy. It claims that all states act defensively to maximize either their security or their relative power, but opposes first-strike wars (Wohlforth 32-34). In chapters eight and ten, the authors cite domestic issues as the force leading the U.S. into an unnecessary war with Iraq, and directly blame the Israel Lobby for the more recent threat of war with Iran. If Mearsheimer and Walt are correct, and the Israel Lobby has the power to manipulate the national interests of both U.S. and Israel, then domestic foreign policy must certainly be important to the discussion of International Relations, and the grand theory of realism is no longer valid.

Mearsheimer and Walt admit their frustration at attempting to explain the U.S.'s involvement in Israel through a realist lens: “Having established that neither strategic interests nor moral rationales can fully explain U.S. support for Israel, we turn our attention to that 'something else'”(15-16). Throughout the book, the authors address issues like the exchange of and international demand for oil, the lobby's manipulation of the media and politicians, the academic watch program implemented by the lobby, and a dwindling moral case in Israel juxtaposed with increasing U.S. support for the state. But while Mearsheimer and Walt address these important domestic issues, they, for the most part, fail to address the interpersonal and cultural aspects of the Israel Lobby. This is where a process-based approach to foreign policy would benefit the authors' debate. Undoubtedly, because Israel is uniquely tied to a variety of religious institutions, the notion of religion (obviously a social element), must not be ignored.

Mearsheimer and Walt approach the Israel Lobby debate through a very narrow system of analysis. Guided by realism, the authors fail to incorporate a variety of political theories to describe the complexities of the Israel Lobby and its impact on International Relations. Their biggest blunder is insisting that the Israel Lobby has made a significant impact on domestic policy in both the U.S. and Israel. This notion fundamentally opposes realism, which asserts that domestic policy has no impact on International Relations. The authors blame the lobby for manipulating the foreign policy objectives of both nations, claiming that both states' national security has been threatened by it. This is where Mearsheimer and Walt's fallacy is clear: If a nation's foreign policy objectives have been captured then domestic policy must indeed be important to International Relations. Nonetheless, the authors prove that Foreign Policy Analysis is too complex to define with one grand theory, and that a process-based approach is imperative to understanding International Relations.



Works Cited
Checkel, Jeffrey T. “Constructivism and Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 72.

Kiersey, Nicholas. Ohio University-Chillicothe, Chillicothe, Ohio. Jan.-Feb. 2009.

Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.

Neack, Laura.The New Foreign Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008.

Wohlforth, William C. “Realism and Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 32-34.